This sentence "Australia's boat arrival intake increasing, but still lower than other OECD nations".. Sorry, what? Since when do other OECD countries have a boat person problem? Most of america's illegal immigrants, for example, come over the Rio Grande or even through tunnels from Mexico to avoid the boarder fences. Some still come by boat from Cuba. Most of Western Europe's illegals would simply drive in or are smuggled across the boarder in some way. Boats don't enter into it.

Perhaps Brenton has confused "boat people" with refugees quotas.. they are quite different things. If boat people stopped coming altogether to Australia the refugee quotas would still be met - the refugees would simply arrive by plane, rather than boat, after due processing. Australia's recently increased its immigration quota but is it lower than other advanced countries per-capita? I wasn't aware that it was - certainly out overall immigration (which includes skilled immigrants and family reunions and so on) is at quite high levels - but I'm prepared to be corrected.

The fact that the boat traffic has to stop is now virtually bi-partisan policy. Only the greens continue to disagree, to the fury of their labor partners, but that's because they are mad.

Posted by Curmudgeon, Tuesday, 8 January 2013 11:07:54 AM

Brenton’s article shows the typical pattern of the ideologue, assuming that his way of understanding the world is the only one possible, and therefore anyone who doesn’t share his worldview must be selfish, malicious, cowardly or stupid.

He starts by attacking the NRA, saying that “the inaction on previous gun violence played a large part in Sandy Hook, not many could disagree with this (excluding the National Rifle Association).” Actually, a large proportion of Americans would disagree with this. Rightly or wrongly, many Americans believe that gun ownership does more to protect people than put them at risk, and only about a third thinks the NRA has too much influence on gun control policies (28% think it is “about right” and 19% “too little”). The pro-gun lobby in the USA is not a small group exercising disproportionate influence, but a very large one exercising its democratic rights.

One may disagree with the US gun lobby – I certainly do – but to oppose the effectively requires an understanding of what they actually believe. This is based in the US historical narrative that tells of armed and diligent citizens’ role in winning the war of independence, resulting in the right to bear arms being enshrined in the constitution. It is underpinned by a suspicion of authority and of the potential for tyranny arising when the government is armed but the people are not (in the Australian “progressive” worldview government is benign and well-intentioned, but suspicion of government is far more entrenched in US political discourse). And it is reinforced by sceptical realism about modern society that argues that, while it might be better if no-one had guns, in a world where criminals and crazies will find ways to access guns, honest citizens are safer if they are armed too. All of this can be debated, but to dismiss it as simply selfish and malign seems to me both arrogant and ignorant.

... continued

Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 8 January 2013 4:03:59 PM

Similarly, with Brenton’s attack on the Christian ant-gay lobby. They are not motivated by selfishness – opposing gay marriage is many things, but “selfish”?. They are motivated by what they consider to be the best interest of society and even the individuals concerned. If you really believe that homosexuality is a sin, that gay marriage threatens the social fabric, that the purpose of marriage is to provide a stable setting to raise children, and that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice that can be reversed, then you would conclude the only moral position is to oppose it. You would no more care that most Australians support gay marriage than Brenton cares that most Americans support the right to bear arms – a principle is at stake. I fiercely disagree with the anti-gay lobby in all of these assumptions and beliefs, but I accept that that are sincerely held and – in their proponents’ eyes – morally coercive. To say that a “progressive” politician who opposes gay marriage is “motivated by fear of a fickle electorate”, is cheap and lazy. Nor is it consistent with Brenton’s assertion that “the vast majority of Australians are in favour of marriage equality.” If this is true, then electoral expediency would drive MPs to support gay marriage, not oppose it.

I actually support gun control and gay marriage, and want a more humane and tolerant approach to refugees. But Brenton’s article is a reminder of the mixture of smug self-righteousness and blinkered ideological intolerance that characterises so many self-described “progressives”

Posted by Rhian, Tuesday, 8 January 2013 4:04:49 PM

To Curmudgeon.

Thanks for your comment, as you've mentioned, I should have referred to "refugee quota", not "boat arrival quota" (same for the mention of intake), it was a rather careless mistake indeed.

Your comment on bipartisanship in regards to current refugee policies indicates you failed to understand the purpose of the article, or at the very least disagreed with its premise. Calling the greens "mad" isn't an argument, it is lazy and in my mind unfit as a debating point, irrespective of its irrelevance to this article.

Regards, Brenton

Posted by Brenton Luxton, Tuesday, 8 January 2013 8:06:40 PM

Hi Rhian,

Thanks for the post. I did have a rather comprehensive response to your comments, but was thwarted in posting it due to a page error. I'll do my best to recreate it.

Firstly, your comments relating to whether or not Americans are in favour of gun control doesn't particularly detract from my argument, at least not in the manner you think. What I was attempting to convey was that good policy is being impeded by special interest groups. I think, despite the stats you cited, that most would agree gun deaths can be attributed to laissez-faire gun control. Where they don't, one must ask the question: what is so wrong with people that they can trample on the life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of those whose lives are snuffed out by a bullet?

Your dismissive assertion that my perspective is "arrogant and ignorant" is just that. My argument revolves around an ethical standpoint, and yes, discussing selfishness would surely factor in if it is against the rights of others.

Continued:::::

Posted by Brenton Luxton, Tuesday, 8 January 2013 9:29:03 PM

Continued:::::

"I actually support gun control and gay marriage, and want a more humane and tolerant approach to refugees. But Brenton’s article is a reminder of the mixture of smug self-righteousness and blinkered ideological intolerance that characterises so many self-described “progressives” "

This is a little difficult to believe, and I think it says more about you and your claim to being a progressive than it does mine (I might add that I did not make one). You cannot defend the special interest groups mentioned, and in the same breath say you support the groups they are attacking. The foundations of gun control, refugee and gay rights activism (and your support of it) revolves around an ethical and moral argument (one that you have clearly dismissed). Your dismissal (/lack of understanding) of ethical arguments are exactly why you've responded the way you have.

Your comment that this article is nothing but "smug self-righteousness" and "ideological intolerance" is a byproduct of your overly liberal attitude (one that is rampant, especially within Australia). You cannot remain on the fence forever, and when it comes down to ethical arguments, you cannot fullstop. Liberty itself is not limitless, and must be moderated in order to protect itself, this is standard social contract theory.